Survey on Knowledge Representation Models in Healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge representation models that aim to present data in a structured and comprehensible manner have gained popularity as a research focus in the pursuit of achieving human-level intelligence. Humans possess the ability to understand, reason and interpret knowledge. They acquire knowledge through their experiences and utilize it to carry out various actions in the real world. Similarly, machines can also perform these tasks, a process known as knowledge representation and reasoning. In this survey, we present a thorough analysis of knowledge representation models and their crucial role in information management within the healthcare domain. We provide an overview of various models, including ontologies, first-order logic and rule-based systems. We classify four knowledge representation models based on their type, such as graphical, mathematical and other types. We compare these models based on four criteria: heterogeneity, interpretability, scalability and reasoning in order to determine the most suitable model that addresses healthcare challenges and achieves a high level of satisfaction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".